Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 382 posts

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#221

Post by xapata »

csixty4 wrote: post #53
xapata wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all. I just put on my balaklava and some knobby tires. It's not that bad with the right clothes. I wouldn't walk around in Boston winter without my face masks either.

I'm genuinely curious: do you wear glasses? How do you keep them from getting fogged up/iced over when riding in the winter?

Contacts are essential. Even without my balaklava, my hat bothers my glasses, making them press into my ears.

Also, my Asian nose doesn't hold glasses very well. Once while biking in the summer (with sweat dripping) they fell off in traffic. I was basically blind. It was terrifying.

Thus, contacts.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#222

Post by hfdgiutdryg »

oftenwrong wrote: post #94

A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work, attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of…

More people can walk than can/will ride a bike. Many old people avoid biking due to poor balance and strength, but can walk without issue.

Biking allows you to move without moving your full body weight across your for and ankle. Bicycles are great for people with lower body joint issues.

Three wheelers work great for people with balance issues.

Tokyo is a testament to the power of bicycles to increase mobility for all ages. I agree with you, but I also recognize that bikes can be better for many people than walking, plus they extend the practical range significantly.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#223

Post by s73v3r_ »

mbritton72 wrote: post #214

Cities are so varied, and have such complex contextual traffic flow variations, that comparing two is an unhelpful oversimplification. What works for the Netherlands will not work for Boston. What works for Osaka will not work for Bangalore.

I think that's an incredibly defeatist attitude to take, and the perfect excuse to not improve anything or try to learn from what others have done.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#224

Post by cr1895 »

noahc wrote: post #208
Damogran6 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is not you. Can it be done? Sure. SHOULD it be done by a cross-section of the populous?

I don't see why it couldn't be done by almost anyone given that they live close enough to work. Anything less than 10 miles is doable assuming you have a good route.

>almost anyone

I think that you considerably overestimate the capabilities of “almost anyone”

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#225

Post by Steltek »

mrob wrote: post #113
5parks1 wrote: post #30

The Dutch cycling culture is worthy of praise, but people frequently forget or ignore a key element of its success: Amsterdam is pancake flat. I live outside of Denver, and my neighborhood is very cycling friendly, but my 8-year old daughter can't make it up the hill on our street without walking.

If you can't make it up the hill then you need a lower gear. Utility bikes are easily controllable even at walking pace. The bigger problem is wind. Headwinds can easily slow you down as much as hills, and crosswinds make the bike harder to control. Amsterdam has higher average wind speeds than Denver.

I see that you didn't mention tailwinds. Because, of course, they're a myth and don't actually exist.

I recall reading the meteorological explanation for why the wind changes direction on ocean cities. The net effect for me is that I'm nearly always going into a local headwind and it's quite horrible.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#226

Post by s73v3r_ »

option wrote: post #40

I wonder how a bike or even public transit is going to replace a car? 1) How am I supposed ro go to the beach with two kids, stuff for picnic and surfboards on a bike or even on a bus?!! 2) Public transit is all good, but have you ever been in a PEOPLE jam during rush hour in a subway? Because I had. And I will take SV traffic jam over it any day. The truly bad things happen because of radicalism - it should not be b…

"1) How am I supposed ro go to the beach with two kids, stuff for picnic and surfboards on a bike or even on a bus?!!"

Do you honestly do this every day? No? Then don't bring that up. Use a car when it makes sense, and don't when you don't have to.

"2) Public transit is all good, but have you ever been in a PEOPLE jam during rush hour in a subway? Because I had. And I will take SV traffic jam over it any day."

Increase funding so you can increase the amount of trains. Or shift your commute a bit. Either way, I don't believe for a second that one would rather spend 3 hours driving each way.

"The truly bad things happen because of radicalism - it should not be bikes + public transit vs cars. It should be a healthy, safe mix of both."

It should be a mix. But people like you are turning it into an either/or battle. You're spreading so much FUD that cycling, walking, and public transit don't get any say.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#227

Post by brightball »

vkou wrote: post #207
brightball wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that not having children en masse as a group goes against biology. It's happening in a lot of places too. https://www.businessinsider.com/do-it-for-denmark-ad-campaig... It's not shaming to point out a thing is happening or that it a thing is biologically necessary to further the human race. You're welcome to call it anything you want, but there's a lot of "shaming" that's gone in the other direction a…

Having access to automobiles, vaccination, running water, and anti-biotics goes against biology. On the other hand, getting eaten by a tiger, living with ringworms, having your teeth fall out before middle age, or having 50/50 odds of dying by the age of 4 is perfectly natural, does not go against biology. I don't think biology is a great litmus test for how we want to structure society.

Aside from automobiles, the other examples you have are things humans have done to further the survival of the species. More advanced versions of seeking food and shelter essentially.

Which is a natural expectation of the species...

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#228

Post by kazinator »

screye wrote: post #28

A 2 key points about well designed bike lanes that aren't bought up enough are: 1. raised / structural separation between the road and bikes path. 2. bike paths can be used for just about anything that is not a car/motorbike or a pedestrian. Skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes can all share a common separated path way. I have tried biking in Boston and it is a nightmare. Bike Lanes marked on the road are taken…

Bike paths used by pedestrians are "mixed use trails" that are basically for recreational use. Someone cycling with a purpose to get somewhere, and especially if they have good physical ability from doing a lot of cycling, will tend to stay away from such. Doing your regular 35-40 km/h on these is crazy, and if you can go fast, why would you use a path where you can't do that.

While these trails are nice (obviously, we need recreational spaces), they don't do anything for congestion or commuting.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#229

Post by cr1895 »

aqme28 wrote: post #47
jbob2000 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this weird thing that happens in northern climates where all the bikers and scooter riders magically disappear sometime around October and don't reappear until sometime in April. I can't figure out why this happens, we should really aim to understand that before we push bikes and scooters on half the human population. I don't think it's the car lobby that causes this disappearance.

How far northern are we talking? There are still a lot of bikers in NYC in my observation, and Amsterdam is pretty far north.

Amsterdam May be at a high latitude but it’s very mild.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#230

Post by kazinator »

telchar wrote: post #220
screye wrote: post #28

A 2 key points about well designed bike lanes that aren't bought up enough are: 1. raised / structural separation between the road and bikes path. 2. bike paths can be used for just about anything that is not a car/motorbike or a pedestrian. Skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes can all share a common separated path way. I have tried biking in Boston and it is a nightmare. Bike Lanes marked on the road are taken…

I'd add that a significantly under-discussed element of safe biking infrastructure is safer intersections. My city has lots of bike lanes that are sufficiently wide (and many that aren't) and no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection. My commute requires me to cross several lanes of traffic to get from the bike lane to the left turn lane on a road where cars go ~40mph -…

> no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection.

This is because they are designed by non-cyclists who are thinking purely of recreational use: someone casually dawdling their way to work on a sunny day three times a year.

"Oh, well, here of course they will dismount and then use the crosswalk ... that's what I'd do!"

Post reply on HN